SRI NARESH KUMAR SHARMA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 48(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 1486/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13
Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M. Jagtap] I.T.A. No. 1486/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Naresh Kumar Sharma.............................…………………………………Appellant C/O Sri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate, 19D, Muktaram Babuy Street, Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Akups6148K] Income Tax Officer...................……………………………………………….......Respondent Ward 48(3) 3, Govt. Place (W) Kolkata - 700001 Appearances By: Shri Jitendra Kaushik, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 05, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 31, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) 14, Kolkata, Dated 28.04.2017 & The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Therein Read As Under: 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Considering That The Ld. Assessing Officer Erred In Not Completing The Assessment By Applying The Provision Of Section 44Ae Of The Act, 1961 2. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, Without Prejudice The Ground No 1 The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer Of A Sum Of Rs. 21,52,648/- Under The Head ‘Undisclosed Income’.
Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 80C
depreciation and the amount of unexplained investment would have been higher by that much amount. The AO has in fact also taken into account the amount of unexplained deposits in bank while calculating the amount of unexplained investment in trucks. I cannot find fault with the findings of the AO and the same stand confirmed.
Aggrieved by the order
